Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    We cannot know that an idea is an adequate representation... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    We cannot know that an idea is an adequate representation by comparing the idea with the object as it exists apart from representation.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.To know something, on the Classical view, is to represent it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Comparing an idea with an object as it exists apart from representation would require knowing the object without a representation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Knowing an object without a representation is impossible on the Classical view.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Direct realists (Reid, Pryor) hold that perception gives unmediated access to objects, bypassing the idea-as-intermediary model entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If perception is not representational but relational, the regress problem in comparing idea to object never arises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that correctness of representation is established through public practice and use, not private comparison.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If adequacy is determined by intersubjective agreement and successful application, we need no object-apart-from-representation as a benchmark.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Perception2 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Comparing an idea with an object as it exists apart from representation would re...Direct realists (Reid, Pryor) hold that perception gives unmediated access to ob...If adequacy is determined by intersubjective agreement and successful applicatio...If perception is not representational but relational, the regress problem in com...
    +3 moreShow less
    Knowing an object without a representation is impossible on the Classical view.To know something, on the Classical view, is to represent it.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that correctness of representa...

    Similar

    We cannot establish that an idea is a representation by comparing it t...89%Comparing an idea with an object as it exists apart from representatio...88%An idea must make it apparent through itself that it is a representati...83%If thinking is representation, then there is no coherent way to distin...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: foucault
    View source passageHide passage
    How, on the Classical view, do we know that an idea is a representation of an object—and an adequate representation? Not, Foucault argues, by comparing the idea with the object as it is apart from its representation. This is impossible, since it would require knowing the object without a representation (when, for Classical thought, to know is to represent). The only possibility is that the idea itself must make it apparent that it is a representation. The idea represents the very fact that it is
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit